"Words are absolutely powerless to compel anyone to act violently."
Yes, that's true, but words can provoke, sometimes against our better judgment or will.
The classic example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. While that's not violence, strictly speaking, under some circumstances words can cause havoc. The question is whether someone has the right to say things that do actual damage to others.
Why is it illegal (in most circumstances anyway) to punch me in the nose?
But in any case, one must keep in mind the standard: in order to be illegal, it must provoke "imminent" violence. Like standing on a soapbox and inciting an already riled crowd to riot. We know it's possible because it has happened in our lifetimes.
Please don't take this the wrong way. But if you give up, I'd feel sorry for your children too.
We have actually seen some great advances in just the last few years. The People finally seen to have had enough and have started fighting back. TSA has actually started backing off. Congress has failed to pass some particularly heinous legislation. The Administration has been running into some brick walls. Judges have actually at least begun to start ruling rationally again.
After looking at your document, I should also point out that the big gun ban was in '97, so your stats from 2011-2012 don't prove much of anything. UK Gov. says it's "the 7th annual" fall in gun crime. But the ban was 20 years ago.
One must ask: fall from what? Look at the chart on page 5. After the big gun ban -- according to YOUR OWN source -- gun crime went way up, not down.
Gun crime has been going down in the U.S., too. Rather dramatically... it is only half of what it was 20 years ago. Yet the number of guns per capita has been going steadily UP during that whole period.
If you find some stats that actually prove something, I'd be happy to look at those, too.
"All censors should be told to fuck off, with extreme prejudice."
As a society, we have chosen to limit free speech to speech that does not directly threaten or "provoke imminent violence". Those are accurate statements. What people often misunderstand about this is what threats and "imminent violence" are.
A threat is illegal not because it's abhorrent speech, but because it's a threat. It's illegal to threaten someone in order to get them to behave the way you want. (Somebody please get that through some heads in Federal government!) We have many laws against this kind of behavior that have little or nothing to do with speech per se. But the courts have decided (even the U.S. Supreme Court) that your right to speech is not stronger than someone else's right to not be threatened.
The "imminent violence" language is often misunderstood. Saying "we must overthrow the government" is not provoking "imminent" violence. In fact it's protected political speech. But tweeting "let's all go outside and beat up some white guys", if you expect to be taken seriously, could be "provoking imminent violence". Here imminent means "immediate" or "close by; likely". A real provocation to violence right here, right now. That makes it different from "hate speech" or radical (or even violent) political speech.
"Since it isn't politically correct to profile, and it's nearly impossible to kill a government agency, my vote is to change the name of the TSA to the Transportation Groping agency."
They profile all the time. Hell, half their job is profiling. The problem is that they don't profile over the right things... precisely because it's not "politically correct". So they profile other things. Things they know are worthless.
The phrase "security theater" is no joke. It's all a big act, at your expense. And it isn't entertaining. Or even funny.
"Just remember that this is the actual defense is that people use if you are talking about stopping it."
Who gives a damn? Because you know they're completely full of sh*t. So why in hell should you care what their argument is?
TSA hasn't made America safer. If anything, it's done the opposite by weakening our Constitutional rights... and getting people used to it. TSA all by itself is extremely dangerous to America.
"Because if a mall cop stops you for no good reason and demands to search your bags or something, you call the management."
Haha. Uh-uh. If a mall cop stops me and demands to search my bags for no reason, I'm calling the police, and charging him with kidnapping (or at the very least, "unlawful detention"). YMMV, laws vary from state to state.
A qualifier: TSA has recently lightened up, but that wasn't due to the Democrats at all. It was building rebellion by The People that has been making them back off.
"Republicans the best choice? Those ARE the folks who gave us the TSA, in case your memory is conveniently lost."
... which was expanded and made worse by the Democrats.
Let's talk reality here. NEITHER of the "Big 2" parties have been our friends over the last few decades. And there ARE alternatives. If you don't like it, vote for something else. Like the Constitution, for a change.
"I think you'd be happier with a government that was properly controlled and run by non-careerists. Lots of countries have highly effective and non-harmful governments."
I would not have so much trouble with careerists if they weren't also both elitist and corrupt. Get rid of those, and being a careerist isn't so bad.
"Sure. And it's a great way to catch criminals - just make a gun ownership an instant felony. Pretty soon most guns will be confiscated and it'll get much harder for criminals to get one. That's what happened in the UK and most of the Europe - and now they have drastically less gun crimes than the US."
It might be a better world if any of this were actually true. Oh... the part about having fewer gun crimes than the U.S. is true, but misleading as hell:
They already HAD less gun crime than the U.S., before the gun ban. Which stands to reason, because they have a lot fewer people than the U.S.
But if you mean gun crimes per capita, then yes, that's true, too, but also misleading. They do have fewer gun crimes per capita than the U.S. But [A] again, the gun crimes per capita were already lower than in the U.S., and [B] after the recent gun ban (or confiscation, or however you want to put it), gun crime went UP, not down. And has stayed up. Though you won't hear that from the mouths of government. You have to look up the statistics yourself.
And it is even more misleading if you count gun crimes per gun, because there is more than 10 times as much gun crime per gun in the UK than there is in the United States.
"...that by using half the senses you use half the neurons? Next thing you'll be telling me water is wet and earth is round!
Reply to This Share"
This. You practically took the words out of my mouth.
So much of the rat brain is devoted to sound and smell (far more than humans, in proportion) that it should be no surprise at all that brain activity is lower without sound or smell.
Looks like yet another case of researchers forming the wrong conclusion from good data. I've seen a lot of that lately.
Yes. And echo -1 AC: this "shows how far behind we are in tech." Although I do not agree with the word "behind". I'd say "not yet advanced".
The title is yet another gross exaggeration of tech advancement, as so many have been to the point they're tiresome. Not only is that not "the full range of insect flight" (since when is hovering in place "full range"?), it's a very far cry from independent flight.
As the researcher admitted: it will probably be another 5-10 years before we have the technology to make the title really accurate. And even that would depend on enough advances in networking that the wire can be removed.
While the first poster's comment might have been intended as snide or humorous, there's a grain of truth in it. Not about whining, necessarily, but about his behavior at work.
The thing is, there is probably no future in doing what he is doing: somebody else's work, without credit.
I can appreciate that he wants to make sure things are done right, but he's doing work that should have been done by somebody else, and not making sure that it's being noticed. That's a great formula for failure. I know because I have been there.
If it's just charts and diagrams, then I'd mark each change with a colored * (asterisk), then at the bottom put:
* change by [blah] on [today's date here]
And if it's code, I'd make sure to comment any such changes I made.
Then, at least, he's taking credit for getting it done, and subtly calling attention to the fact that somebody else did NOT get it done right.
If doing it right and taking credit for the changes will get him in trouble, then he's in a toxic workplace and should start looking for another right away.
But what bothers me is that I have no idea what "one to three times bigger" means.
I understand "one to three times Earth's size", and I understand "two or three times as large" and "twice as big". But I don't understand "one to three times bigger".
I suppose logically, "one time bigger" would mean twice the size. But then "two times bigger" would mean three times the size, and so on. I get the feeling that's not what he meant.
"No, it doesn't work that way. What matters is if the player is playing the game as intended by the owner of the game, not the programmer."
Nonsense. The owner of the game has very little say in the matter. They don't write the law.
I can write software to do damn near anything I want. That doesn't mean other people are obligated to do it that way. At most that would be a violation of terms of service, not the law.
"The player is committing a crime as soon as he intentionally takes advantage of the fact that the machine is not playing by the stated rules."
Again, nonsense. The player commits a crime when he violates the LAW. Since when do software companies write the law? If it worked the way you state, then software companies could, in effect, write their own laws by dictating the rules of the game. Now... it may be that there is a law that specifically says that in Nevada, but I'm far from convinced that such a law exists. I'd want to see it. As far as I know there is no such law anywhere else. Even CFAA does not contain such specific language.
"When he does it again just to see if it happens again then he might have committed a crime. When he tells his friends and they use the trick to beat the machine then they have all committed a crime."
Again, I'd have to be shown the specific law saying that. I'm not aware of one. It may be against the law to violate the House rules. I don't know. But since when do the House rules pertain specifically to operating software in a particular way?
If you can show me an actual law that backs up your claims, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong. But until I see one, call me skeptical.
Slashdot Mirror
I should add that for the most part I agree with you, and any restrictions on speech must be only for the most extreme, most egregious cases.
"Words are absolutely powerless to compel anyone to act violently."
Yes, that's true, but words can provoke, sometimes against our better judgment or will.
The classic example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. While that's not violence, strictly speaking, under some circumstances words can cause havoc. The question is whether someone has the right to say things that do actual damage to others.
Why is it illegal (in most circumstances anyway) to punch me in the nose?
But in any case, one must keep in mind the standard: in order to be illegal, it must provoke "imminent" violence. Like standing on a soapbox and inciting an already riled crowd to riot. We know it's possible because it has happened in our lifetimes.
Please don't take this the wrong way. But if you give up, I'd feel sorry for your children too.
We have actually seen some great advances in just the last few years. The People finally seen to have had enough and have started fighting back. TSA has actually started backing off. Congress has failed to pass some particularly heinous legislation. The Administration has been running into some brick walls. Judges have actually at least begun to start ruling rationally again.
All is not lost.
"Directly or indirectly you did."
I am willing to converse with you, but not if you're going to be an arrogant asshole about it.
I did NOT get my information from the NRA, directly or indirectly. Any assumption on your part to the contrary is just plain horseshit.
After looking at your document, I should also point out that the big gun ban was in '97, so your stats from 2011-2012 don't prove much of anything. UK Gov. says it's "the 7th annual" fall in gun crime. But the ban was 20 years ago.
One must ask: fall from what? Look at the chart on page 5. After the big gun ban -- according to YOUR OWN source -- gun crime went way up, not down.
Gun crime has been going down in the U.S., too. Rather dramatically... it is only half of what it was 20 years ago. Yet the number of guns per capita has been going steadily UP during that whole period.
If you find some stats that actually prove something, I'd be happy to look at those, too.
I did not get my information from the NRA.
And as I clearly stated before, you aren't going to get it from the UK government, either.
All you did was prove my point.
And I'm not picking on the UK particularly. Recent U.S. administrations have lied to the people quite a lot.
"All censors should be told to fuck off, with extreme prejudice."
As a society, we have chosen to limit free speech to speech that does not directly threaten or "provoke imminent violence". Those are accurate statements. What people often misunderstand about this is what threats and "imminent violence" are.
A threat is illegal not because it's abhorrent speech, but because it's a threat. It's illegal to threaten someone in order to get them to behave the way you want. (Somebody please get that through some heads in Federal government!) We have many laws against this kind of behavior that have little or nothing to do with speech per se. But the courts have decided (even the U.S. Supreme Court) that your right to speech is not stronger than someone else's right to not be threatened.
The "imminent violence" language is often misunderstood. Saying "we must overthrow the government" is not provoking "imminent" violence. In fact it's protected political speech. But tweeting "let's all go outside and beat up some white guys", if you expect to be taken seriously, could be "provoking imminent violence". Here imminent means "immediate" or "close by; likely". A real provocation to violence right here, right now. That makes it different from "hate speech" or radical (or even violent) political speech.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I just meant that if we had careerists that were not that way, it wouldn't be so bad.
It could, but that itself would be just opinion, and incorrect.
I'm not about to spend an hour proving it to you, but I have researched these statistics, and I do know what I'm talking about.
"Since it isn't politically correct to profile, and it's nearly impossible to kill a government agency, my vote is to change the name of the TSA to the Transportation Groping agency."
They profile all the time. Hell, half their job is profiling. The problem is that they don't profile over the right things... precisely because it's not "politically correct". So they profile other things. Things they know are worthless.
The phrase "security theater" is no joke. It's all a big act, at your expense. And it isn't entertaining. Or even funny.
"Just remember that this is the actual defense is that people use if you are talking about stopping it."
Who gives a damn? Because you know they're completely full of sh*t. So why in hell should you care what their argument is?
TSA hasn't made America safer. If anything, it's done the opposite by weakening our Constitutional rights... and getting people used to it. TSA all by itself is extremely dangerous to America.
"Because if a mall cop stops you for no good reason and demands to search your bags or something, you call the management."
Haha. Uh-uh. If a mall cop stops me and demands to search my bags for no reason, I'm calling the police, and charging him with kidnapping (or at the very least, "unlawful detention"). YMMV, laws vary from state to state.
A qualifier: TSA has recently lightened up, but that wasn't due to the Democrats at all. It was building rebellion by The People that has been making them back off.
"Republicans the best choice? Those ARE the folks who gave us the TSA, in case your memory is conveniently lost."
... which was expanded and made worse by the Democrats.
Let's talk reality here. NEITHER of the "Big 2" parties have been our friends over the last few decades. And there ARE alternatives. If you don't like it, vote for something else. Like the Constitution, for a change.
"I think you'd be happier with a government that was properly controlled and run by non-careerists. Lots of countries have highly effective and non-harmful governments."
I would not have so much trouble with careerists if they weren't also both elitist and corrupt. Get rid of those, and being a careerist isn't so bad.
I don't know about him. But I am. Very.
Hey, modder: even "overrated" does not equate to "I don't like your position on the issue".
"Sure. And it's a great way to catch criminals - just make a gun ownership an instant felony. Pretty soon most guns will be confiscated and it'll get much harder for criminals to get one. That's what happened in the UK and most of the Europe - and now they have drastically less gun crimes than the US."
It might be a better world if any of this were actually true. Oh... the part about having fewer gun crimes than the U.S. is true, but misleading as hell:
They already HAD less gun crime than the U.S., before the gun ban. Which stands to reason, because they have a lot fewer people than the U.S.
But if you mean gun crimes per capita, then yes, that's true, too, but also misleading. They do have fewer gun crimes per capita than the U.S. But [A] again, the gun crimes per capita were already lower than in the U.S., and [B] after the recent gun ban (or confiscation, or however you want to put it), gun crime went UP, not down. And has stayed up. Though you won't hear that from the mouths of government. You have to look up the statistics yourself.
And it is even more misleading if you count gun crimes per gun, because there is more than 10 times as much gun crime per gun in the UK than there is in the United States.
Correction of my earlier posts:
While I stick to my comments about recent research in general, in this case, after reading TFA, it appears I was off the mark.
It wasn't the researcher who came to the wrong conclusion, it was OP.
"Looks like yet another case of researchers forming the wrong conclusion from good data. I've seen a lot of that lately."
I should add that a lot of these instances appear to be caused by invalid assumptions. Competent researchers should know better.
"...that by using half the senses you use half the neurons? Next thing you'll be telling me water is wet and earth is round! Reply to This Share"
This. You practically took the words out of my mouth.
So much of the rat brain is devoted to sound and smell (far more than humans, in proportion) that it should be no surprise at all that brain activity is lower without sound or smell.
Looks like yet another case of researchers forming the wrong conclusion from good data. I've seen a lot of that lately.
Yes. And echo -1 AC: this "shows how far behind we are in tech." Although I do not agree with the word "behind". I'd say "not yet advanced".
The title is yet another gross exaggeration of tech advancement, as so many have been to the point they're tiresome. Not only is that not "the full range of insect flight" (since when is hovering in place "full range"?), it's a very far cry from independent flight.
As the researcher admitted: it will probably be another 5-10 years before we have the technology to make the title really accurate. And even that would depend on enough advances in networking that the wire can be removed.
While the first poster's comment might have been intended as snide or humorous, there's a grain of truth in it. Not about whining, necessarily, but about his behavior at work.
The thing is, there is probably no future in doing what he is doing: somebody else's work, without credit.
I can appreciate that he wants to make sure things are done right, but he's doing work that should have been done by somebody else, and not making sure that it's being noticed. That's a great formula for failure. I know because I have been there.
If it's just charts and diagrams, then I'd mark each change with a colored * (asterisk), then at the bottom put:
* change by [blah] on [today's date here]
And if it's code, I'd make sure to comment any such changes I made.
Then, at least, he's taking credit for getting it done, and subtly calling attention to the fact that somebody else did NOT get it done right.
If doing it right and taking credit for the changes will get him in trouble, then he's in a toxic workplace and should start looking for another right away.
True, true.
But what bothers me is that I have no idea what "one to three times bigger" means.
I understand "one to three times Earth's size", and I understand "two or three times as large" and "twice as big". But I don't understand "one to three times bigger".
I suppose logically, "one time bigger" would mean twice the size. But then "two times bigger" would mean three times the size, and so on. I get the feeling that's not what he meant.
"No, it doesn't work that way. What matters is if the player is playing the game as intended by the owner of the game, not the programmer."
Nonsense. The owner of the game has very little say in the matter. They don't write the law.
I can write software to do damn near anything I want. That doesn't mean other people are obligated to do it that way. At most that would be a violation of terms of service, not the law.
"The player is committing a crime as soon as he intentionally takes advantage of the fact that the machine is not playing by the stated rules."
Again, nonsense. The player commits a crime when he violates the LAW. Since when do software companies write the law? If it worked the way you state, then software companies could, in effect, write their own laws by dictating the rules of the game. Now... it may be that there is a law that specifically says that in Nevada, but I'm far from convinced that such a law exists. I'd want to see it. As far as I know there is no such law anywhere else. Even CFAA does not contain such specific language.
"When he does it again just to see if it happens again then he might have committed a crime. When he tells his friends and they use the trick to beat the machine then they have all committed a crime."
Again, I'd have to be shown the specific law saying that. I'm not aware of one. It may be against the law to violate the House rules. I don't know. But since when do the House rules pertain specifically to operating software in a particular way?
If you can show me an actual law that backs up your claims, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong. But until I see one, call me skeptical.